DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 74088--------------------------------------------------
Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: May 31, 2025, 1:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was sent a parking charge / penalty letter / Notice by UKCPS
on 17 October 2024. For me going into a car park managed by them
and dropping somebody off. In fact, on their own photograph you
can see the passenger alighting from the carr and the car not
even in a parking bay. Also, the driver cannot be seen as the
car rear is facing the camer.
I have ignored their letter and so they referred to Trace Debt
Recovery. Agai, I have ignored and it was then passed to
'Moorside Legal' in March 2025. I continued to ignore the letter
(and some how bothe Trace and Moorside have obtaine dmy mobile
telephone number and have been making calls to me which I have
not answered and simply ignored and blocked.
Moorside legal on 23 April 2025 sent me a "Letter of Claim' more
or less telling me to reply within 30 days. I have not done so.
Should I submit a reply suc as a dispute etc or just continue to
ignore.
In the meantime the original cgarge of £60.00 has now increased
to £170.00 with a suggestion in the letter that is will increase
to £277.00 when it goes to the County Court.
Any suggestions / ideas as to what I should or should not do?
#Post#: 74090--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: May 31, 2025, 1:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Would a reply in the following terms suffice - if it is
suggested I reply:
"I am writing in response to your Letter of Claim dated [date]
in relation to the alleged parking charge (Reference: [Reference
Number]) at [Car Park Location]. I dispute this charge in its
entirety and set out below my full and detailed reasons for
doing so.
Firstly, I wish to make it absolutely clear that at no point was
my vehicle parked in your client's car park. I was briefly
stopping to drop off a passenger, a manoeuvre that took mere
moments and during which the vehicle remained attended at all
times. My vehicle did not enter any designated parking bays, nor
was it left unattended in a manner that could constitute
parking. Your client's signage, even if compliant (which I do
not concede), would only apply to vehicles that were actually
parked, not those engaged in a brief drop-off or pick-up. The
distinction is crucial, as no contractual parking terms could
possibly have been formed under these circumstances.
Furthermore, I must emphasise that your client has suffered no
loss whatsoever as a result of this brief stop. The principle
established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not
apply in this situation, as that case specifically concerned
vehicles that were parked, not those momentarily stopping. Your
client's demand for what appears to be an arbitrary sum of £100
or more is grossly disproportionate when there has been no
occupation of a parking space, no prevention of other customers
from parking, and no financial loss incurred by the landowner. A
parking charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to
be enforceable, and in this case, there is simply no loss to
estimate.
I also note with concern the evidential shortcomings in your
client's case. The photographic evidence provided shows only the
rear of my vehicle, failing to demonstrate that the vehicle was
actually parked or left unattended. There is no visible proof of
any parking contravention having occurred. In fact, the images
conspicuously fail to show the driver or any activity that might
constitute parking. Without clear evidence that my vehicle was
parked in breach of any terms, your client's claim lacks any
substantive foundation.
Additionally, should your client be attempting to pursue me as
the registered keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
I must remind you that strict compliance with the Act is
required. This includes the obligation to serve a Notice to
Keeper within 14 days of the alleged incident, containing all
prescribed information in the correct format. Should your client
have failed in any aspect of these statutory requirements, which
I believe may well be the case, then I cannot be held liable as
the keeper. I require your client to provide unequivocal
evidence of full compliance with the Act before this matter can
proceed any further.
In light of the above points, all of which I am prepared to
argue robustly in court should it become necessary, I consider
this matter to be closed. Should you choose to disregard this
comprehensive defence and proceed with legal action, please be
advised that I will not only defend the claim vigorously but
will also seek to recover all associated costs incurred in doing
so. I trust that upon proper consideration of the facts set out
above, your client will recognise that this claim is entirely
without merit and will discontinue it without further delay.
I look forward to your confirmation that this matter has been
dropped. Should you fail to provide such confirmation within 14
days of the date of this letter, I will have no alternative but
to assume that your client intends to pursue the matter
unreasonably, and I will prepare my defence accordingly".
#Post#: 74092--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: jfollows Date: May 31, 2025, 1:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Read
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/<br
/>and then post all documents you’re talking about to enable us
to
come to our own conclusions and give you good advice.
Just talking about what you’ve received without showing us isn’t
very helpful!
Every case is different.
#Post#: 74098--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: May 31, 2025, 3:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Further to the above messages I am enclosing copies of all
letters received in chronological order (personal details
redacted) to date.
I have to date not responded to any of these letter.
Somhow Trace and Moorside Legal have managed to get my mobile
number and I have not answered them. In fact, I have blocked the
various calls made to me.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 74099--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: May 31, 2025, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Further to the above. I am also enclosing a copy of the
photograph I was sent with the initial letter from UKCPS from
which it can be seen the vehicle is still running at the
entrance of the car park, the rear passenger is alighting from
the vehicle and the car is not even in a car parking bay.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 74107--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: Nosy Parker Date: May 31, 2025, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't send the letter you drafted. It hurts your defence. Wait
for advice.
#Post#: 74114--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: b789 Date: May 31, 2025, 8:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT respond to the Letter of Claim (LoC) with what you have
drafted. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not PoFA compliant with
paragraph 9(2)(a) and will be backed up by the persuasive
appellate case of Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)
[H6DP632H].
Additionally, you will rely on Jopson v Homeguard (2016)
[B9GF0A9E] should this ever get as far as a hearing (extremely
unlikely if you follow the advice).
All the waffle about CCTV or ANPR images is useless. Even if
they had a close up HD image of the driver, they would still
have no idea who that person was. There is no magical unicorn
database where an image of a person can be input and out spurts
all the personal details of that person.
Respond to the LoC with the following by email to
help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and also CC in yourself:
[quote]Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places
reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to
identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal
presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any
particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver as
per VCS v Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C]
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0.
If your client is seeking to rely on Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to hold me
liable as keeper, they are unable to do so. As your client
cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of
the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me
and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in
relation to your client’s unreasonable and vexatious conduct
under Part 27.14(2)(g)
Because your letter lacks specificity and breaches the
requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
(paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2) as well as the Practice
Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)), you
must treat this letter as a formal request for all of the
documents/information that the protocol now requires your client
to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without
complying with that protocol.
As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements
of both the Practice Direction and the Pre-Action Protocol for
debt claims and your client, as a serial litigator of debt
claims, should likewise be aware of them. As you (and your
client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all
potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its
express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim
and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable
parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a
settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the
costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It
is embarrassing that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer
a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter of Claim' in complete ignorance
of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the Pre-Action
Protocol.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the
Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.
Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by
sending me the following information/documents:
[indent]1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of
POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; for how long it is claimed
the vehicle was parked, how the monies being claimed arose and
have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the
date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and
provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. If the claim is for a contractual breach, photographs showing
the vehicle was parked in contravention of said contract.
7. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
8. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under
which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).
9. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
10. Photographs of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of
font, height at which displayed) at the time of any alleged
contravention.
11. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any
interest and administrative or other charges added
12. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what
is dressed up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett
or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why
I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
13. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this
damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for
parking?[/indent]
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a)
and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to
comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If your client does not provide me with this information then I
put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb
Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch),
Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part
20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church
Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann
Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions
on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant
to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice
Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided
this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged
claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is
entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for
your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then
I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the
Practice Direction and an order that this information is
provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name][/quote]
#Post#: 74190--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: June 1, 2025, 1:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you appreciate. Will do and will keep you guys posted.
#Post#: 75141--------------------------------------------------
Re: Court Claim following a letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: IAN28221 Date: June 6, 2025, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Further to your assistance and letter sent to Moorside Legal by
email (copy attached (redacted). I have seen received the Court
Claim (Copy attached (redacted) but no response to the email.
Interestingly, the claim form suggests "... 4. The driver agreed
to pay within 28 days but did not. D Is liable as the driver or
keeper".
I have had no communications with anyone before other than the
email sent and so have never agreed to pay.
Can you assist.
What should I now do given they have now issued a claim?
Await your response.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 75145--------------------------------------------------
Re: Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal
By: DWMB2 Date: June 6, 2025, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote] I have had no communications with anyone before other
than the email sent and so have never agreed to pay. [/quote]
Just to quickly clarify this point... They aren't claiming you
have. They're claiming that the driver, by parking, agreed to
the terms and conditions of parking at the site, and thereby
agreed to pay a parking charge.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page